Watch Bon Iver (And Kristen Wiig’s Lana Del Rey Impersonation) On SNL

With one week to go before the Grammys (at which Justin Vernon may win some big awards, but will not perform, thankyouverymuch) Bon Iver hit Studio 8H as musical guests for SNL‘s Channing Tatum-hosted episode. The band played “Holocene” and my favorite song of last year “Beth/Rest,” plus Colin Stetson wore a Liturgy shirt. During Weekend Update, Kristen Wiig impersonated Lana Del Rey, cleverly “apologizing” for her maligned SNL performance last month. Watch Bon Iver and the Update segment below.

So they defended Lana Del Ray’s shit performance by saying that there have been other shit performances on SNL. That’s like saying, “Oh, well i mean, the Rwandan Genocide wasn’t really that bad, I mean, there have been other bad genocides before it, so you should all just back off.”.

I THINK THEY WERE MORE SO RESPONDING TO THE RESPONSE TO HER SHIT PERFORMANCE. I AGREE THAT IT WAS A BIT OVER THE TOP. USUALLY WHEN A BAND BLOWS ON SNL YOU SHRUG YOUR SHOULDERS, ATTRIBUTE IT TO THE BAD SOUND AND VENUE AND MOVE ON. PEOPLE SEEMED TO TAKE IT PERSONALLY WITH HER. THOUGHT KRISTIN WAS FUNNY

by reminded the halfwit children of this country and the overhyped over-caffeinated blogsphere that SNL is the world capital of SHIT performances, Sgum should do a a top 20 list of horrible snl trainwreck clips, it’s endless. #1 should be fucking JLO and her lip-synching with her WIND MACHINE.

I think the thing we should really focus on, besides the LDR impersonation, is the amazing performance by Bon Iver. That might be there best performance on SNL I’ve ever seen. Now I know for sure that I have to go see them this summer. I only hope he brings all those amazing supporting players.

Also, I was always under the impression that “no homo” is like saying, “Yes, I’m straight but I’m comfortable enough with my sexuality to admit that there’s something about another guy that I can admire or envy.” Let me know if I’ve totally got this wrong.

I don’t, but why do you care if I want people to know I’m straight either? I’m not going to discuss this any further as it’s upsetting me a shit load right now seeing as though I’ve always prided myself on being incredibly open-minded and non-judgmental. Food for thought: Most heterosexual guys wouldn’t dare post a compliment about a guy’s looks like the one I wrote at all due to feeling self-conscious, but feel free to criticize me some more.

Well, in all seriousness, I’m gay and I can honestly say that I’m not offended but I do understand why some people would find that offensive. It’s sort of like saying “no shade” and in that context, it’s as if you’re saying that being gay is wrong. But then again, since I do have a lot of straight friends, a lot of them do pride themselves of the fact that they’re, as you said “open-minded and non-judgmental.” In that context, the statement becomes somewhat of a pride badge or something. I’m not saying this to cause offense or anything. I just feel like it’s something that I need to say.

Michael_ – firstly I don’t care either way. Secondly, what a lot of people fail to realize (through no fault of their own) is that there exists a “straight assumption” – chances are people think you’re straight unless you tell them otherwise. That’s why homosexuals and other queer people have to come out of the closet: straight until proven gay essentially.

It’s good that your open-minded, but to base any sort of pride on a comment that includes the term “no homo” – well you’re not winning any points with me. Not losing any, but not winning any either.

And frankly, as a gay man (maybe you assumed I was straight, though not likely given the nature of this and the last comment I made) sometimes I get tired of patting straight guys on the back for being accepting of my lifestyle. In my mind it’s the equivalent of congratulating a teenager for being potty-trained and not shitting on the floor. At some point you have to accept the fact that these enlightened sensibilities are just the right thing to have.

Maybe that doesn’t make sense, but I just woke up. Either way, I was criticizing your use of “no homo”, but not you as a person because I don’t know you as a person. I’m sure you’re a very sweet and nice guy.

I’m not going to get into this any further, but I will say that you don’t really know any details about my personal life or my upbringing to paint me as another straight guy making a “straight assumption” looking for a pat on the back for being open-minded. I’m so incredibly aware and well-versed in what gay people have to deal with socially because of their sexual orientation. It’s second nature to understand everything you’re saying above and unfair to stereotype me as some bumbling heterosexual trying to win brownie points. I’m not trying to be rude, but you’re calling out the wrong guy here and days later, I’m still angry over the reaction. I’ve had enlightened sensibilities nearly all of my life.

Stop saying “no homo” and maybe I’ll believe you. We’re clearly at an impasse – and I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree. Such is life. Please don’t be upset by my opinion. I’m one sad lonely person that disagrees with you. I still respect your opinion as a person.

I had to check to see if this was truly an issue, so I showed this to seven gay people I know and none of them had an issue with my use of “no homo.” Why you ask? Because they know that there’s not a single cell in my body that neither meant it as offensive nor phishing for a compliment, but rather speaking the language of an ironic, ill-conceived pop culture anecdote. A few even said they use it, tongue-in-cheek. I’m sorry but you don’t anything about me or my life, so stop trying to assign rules spoken on behalf of an entire community when I’ve first hand evidence from those within it think you’re seriously overreacting and — in one of their own words — “trying to make an example out of a straight man…. which in turn isn’t helping because it’s making it sound like we’re not equal.”

And I don’t know how many times I can agree with you that I don’t know you and I still respect our opinion, but as you keep saying things I’m starting to lose respect for that opinion because you seem to not be listening to what I’m saying.

Making an example of? To whom, exactly? The stereogum commenters? They haven’t cared about this since people stopped talking about Bon Iver and Lana del Rey. You and I are probably the only ones actively commenting on this anymore.

I’ve no guilt and already apologized to anyone the original comment rubbed the wrong way (even though it wasn’t meant in bad spirits) a dozen comments ago. I do take serious issue with you saying “Stop saying ** **** and maybe I’ll believe you,” which in turn makes it seem like I’m not being sincere or that I continue to offend. You’re questioning my character and credibility, which is something I take very seriously and for someone who has made such a fuss about being offended by words, you’ve sure a great job at upsetting me and being absolutely narrow-minded.

Awesome to see Reggie Pace on the teevee (the trombonist/auxiliary percussionist/backup singer in Bon Iver). He’s a great musician in his own right and a cornerstone of the surprisingly happening Richmond, VA jazz scene.

wow a 9 piece band, ALMOST as impressive as hefty Kelly Clarkston’s 10 pieceR….but shouldn’t a musical genius not need QUITE so many helpers? oh that’s right, JV is a talentless twat! sorry totally spaced on that one for a second brahhs:)

There really are too many players on the field. Unless you are Brian Wilson trying to recreate Pet Sounds/Smile or have some special situation like Circulatory System and need to have more than one drummer so you can play in two different time signatures, the cutoff should be five people. Broken Social Scene set a bad example, and then everyone else decided they needed multiple maraca players too.

I don’t know why I should bother with this 2 day old thread, but don’t be stupid. If a larger band sounds good, then you use a larger band. If you think “there’s too many people on this stage” you’ve got weird issues. And also understand nothing about music, art, and life. These are insane ramblings. You know symphonies involve more than 9 parts, right? BSS set a bad example by doing what? Trying a different arrangement of instruments? That sounded fine? The notion that there should be a limit to arranging with no basis in actual musical rational thinking is batshit.

Oh okay. So suddenly it is fine for indie music to become bloated and overwrought, one of the very things it was supposed to be against. It’s only a matter of time before liking Styx becomes cool, I guess.

Maybe I’m reading it wrong, and this is sarcastic, but If this is your honest opinion, you are an idiot.

Look, the reason lame music is lame has nothing to do with # of instruments/musicians. The reason lame music is lame is because it is lame.

I’m not pulling any punches, this is the dumbest argument I’ve ever heard, honestly. On a music blog. Offensive. If you find the music boring, that’s totally reasonable and understandable. But if you think that there’s some correlation between the amount of players contributing to the sound created, and whether or not that sound is authentic/credible/cool/overwrought/whatever you have wasted everyone’s time with trying to make a really stupid point.

What I think is that good rock and folk music is generally rooted in a minimalist aesthetic and that deviating from that is usually a slippery slope to self-indulgent mediocrity. This is not being stupid; this is knowing the history of those genres of music. The people who work within a box, who force themselves to get the most out of very little tend to produce better art. This was the basis for the punk movement, from which all the subgenres lumped under the giant umbrella term “indie” are descended. Punk happened as a response to overproduced, self-important bilge that was passing as music in the seventies. Yeah, a handful of post-sixties bands can safely pull off the “Hey, look at us, we’ve got a frickin orchestra!” thing, but usually it is a sign that they are losing sight of why they started a band in the first place. The more parts you add to the thing you started off calling a band, the further you get from the bare bones of the initial idea, the vital personal touch that made it interesting in the first place. For what it’s worth, I saw the second song Bon Iver performed when it aired, and I thought it sounded exactly like something that could have been on the adult-contemporary station my parents would turn on sometimes when I was little (which was during the eighties).

No matter how many words you rationalize an incorrect thing, you are still saying “My personal taste is fewer instruments”

Overproduced is not the same as “number of instruments.” Adding more parts has nothing to do with synthesizing.

As a personal example, I went to see my symphony orchestra perform Shostakovich this weekend. It was better and more beautiful (and probably more subversive, during it’s time) than anything done in minimalist music. Sure, that’s my personal opinion. Which is why suggesting there is some sort of universal appeal to fewer instruments, or more instruments, in an arrangement of musicians, is wrong. To see a lot of musicians and go “well this is just too much” before you’ve heard anything is silly. Do you think Choirs are overwrought? Brass sections? Mingus’ big bands? That was self-indulgent?

You’re right, Styx and Toto and some of the really lame stuff from the 80s was lame…because the music was lame. Adding parts has nothing to do with the problem.

Okay, so I have to respond up here because Stereogum still hasn’t worked a major kink out of their comments section. Obviously you didn’t read what I typed very closely. Read the first sentence of my last post again. I really don’t care how many people perform jazz or classical compositions. That’s an altogether different thing; they often lend themselves to a more elaborate ensemble treatment and draw strength from it. That’s why in my last post I used words like “genres,” “rock,” and “folk.” By their very nature, rock and folk were always meant to be a more personal and raw form of expression. And by the way, having been in a pretty good chorus for years in middle school and high school, let me tell you, the few forays into rock were rather awkward.

I did read that point. I don’t see how you can fail to understand that sound does not adhere to rules of “Coolness” based on “numbers of things.” That rock is a personal thing has nothing to do with numbers. Nor Folk. Nor Punk. Nothing. Some great things are done by individuals in all forms. Some great things are done by massive groups in all forms. Talk about rock Bruce Springsteen has played with large groups on some of his best recordings. The hardcore band Cursive sound awesome with a brass section. Folk…come on, are you telling me that folk requires one person on stage to be successful? That writes off every large folk group with multiple acoustic guitars and percussionists.

Your personal taste is not the same as what is capable of sounding good. It’s wrong. Just admit it’s your personal taste. You like things with less people because you like fewer people in stuff. That’s fine. It has nothing to do with Rawness or the capacity to express.

it’s called ‘taking the piss 101′ …sarcasm/truth/spite=’WEE!’ welcome to our world today. but on a serious note you don’t see radiohead needing 12 people, et cetera. though they did add that weird new drummer for live shows lately didn’t they?

Right! I said all good folk music involved one person onstage, and sure, my argument was all about coolness. Well, now you are just playing (I hope) dumb. I’m not wasting any more time on somebody with virtually no reading comprehension skills.

You pretty much did. You said Good Rock was Rooted in Minimalism. I don’t know what your history of rock music is, but if we’re talking about Elvis on a stage with a guitar, then that’s one person. Same goes for folk and woody guthrie. Also, you implied that Bon Iver playing with more musicians would lead to people liking Styx, and this somehow was a negative, which I’m assuming means you thin Styx is not cool. My comprehension skillz are awesome and I have TWO dicks.

Why would there ever need to be a cap on the number of musicians in a band? Symphony orchestras around the world are disagreeing with you right now.

All that matters is that they’re contributing something to the sound mix, rather than creating a cacophonous racket (although some people love that, too). This live version of Bon Iver is one of the best examples of that concept that I’ve ever seen (and I’ve seen A LOT of live music). You can hear (and see) what sounds each player is contributing to the songs. And their harmonies are beautiful, as well.

I would like to go back to my original post then and reiterate that the suggestion there should be some sort of limit to the number of pieces in a band in any genre anywhere is stupid. I won’t even address it anymore. Good luck! There is literally no way I would agree to that point in a million years for any reason. I still don’t even understand WHY there would be a cap. Because some groups who were lame used a lot of parts? They ruined it for everyone else? What is the point. MAKE A POINT.

Most Viewed

Last spring the world got a brief preview of Once Upon A Time In Shaolin, the secret Wu-Tang Clan album that will be released in a limited edition of 1 and auctioned off to the highest bidder. That might be all most of us hear from the project for the rest of our… More »

Kanye West debuted his much-leaked single "All Day" at the Brit Awards last week, and now a studio version has emerged. The So Help Me God song's bouncy, bass-heavy beat also features verses from Allan Kingdom and Theophilus London, and a massive "Monster"/"Black Skinhead"-style riff slices through the track from time… More »

Carly Rae Jepsen's "Call Me Maybe" was one of the defining jams of summer 2012, but it was the sort of song that screamed "one-hit wonder" from the rooftops. Well, that's not going to be the case. Today, Jepsen comes back with a new single called "I Really Like You," and it is absolute top-shelf… More »

Die Antwoord seemed to be on the verge of climbing to a new tier of celebrity this year with Ninja and Yolandi Visser playing prominent roles in the dystopian sci-fi twee oddity Chappie. Now they'll definitely be more famous, but not for the right reasons; notorious might be a better word for it. Drake and… More »

Mumford & Sons have announced the details of their third full-length, Wilder Mind, and it's bound to sound pretty different from the rest of the folk-rock group's output. As As they told Rolling Stone, the band went completely electric for the new album, ditching the folkier elements that catapulted them to fame. "We felt… More »